Stuff

I’ve taken the last week off following the 5th May elections, and so have most of the polls. There have, however, been two new EU polls published over the last week, so just to keep everyone up to speed their topline figures were:

202 Responses to “EU Polling update”

ON
“Were you to argue that a dominant group within a coalition of states, who had decided to adopt a common currency, forced through decisions which disadvantaged some of their partners, I would totally agree with you.”

I would argue that that is Germany, if you examine recent events. I also remember a German foreign minister a few years ago saying that if the UK didn’t toe the line, they might have to resort to ‘traditional methods’.

It is entirely possible to form an opinion on whether it is desirable to form institutions by which nations aim to form alliances to impose their will on others, without predicating one’s decision on the particular nations that are likely to play each role.

Indeed one could argue that for a pan-European demos to truly function, it is not only possible but required.

My only note for this discussion, is that both parties have now had someone make rather unwise allegory towards Hitler, that they tenuously defended as being “historically accurate” if you took a very skewed definition of accurate. One party suspended theirs, the other has not.

I think both Cameron and Boris have shown with their silly hyperbole that they have been too long under the influence of Lynton Crosby. His modus operandi of characterising opponents and their views as extremists, dangerous and or will lead to calamity, is evidenced with their latest missives

My only note for this discussion, is that both parties have now had someone make rather unwise allegory towards Hitler, that they tenuously defended as being “historically accurate” if you took a very skewed definition of accurate. One party suspended theirs, the other has not.

The understated UKIP vote is interesting. On the face of it you would expect Kippers to be your motivated voter types and more comfortable to say they’d vote UKIP online because of the social desirability factor. The fact that it’s still off is interesting. Perhaps this is due to traditional Labour voters who’ve moved to UKIP but don’t bother to go out and vote for them for one reason or another.

Linking this idea to the EU referendum, I think it’s assumed by a lot of people that the In vote will suffer from people who don’t really care enough to go out and vote but perhaps the UKIP polling is telling us that the Out vote might suffer just as much from the same thing.

Yes, there’s the question of how democratically accountable the EU is, and then there is what’s being signed up to, things like the trade deals, TTIP etc., the two not being entirely unconnected.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect: you don’t tend to see Pro-EU types engaging much with the TTIP thing at all. Even Pro-Leave, seem to give it a wide berth!!

We are entering a phase where it’s not enough to dismantle the post war settlement, now they want to lock in the dismantling. And to some extent, free movement and consequent immigration is being used as the excuse for this and more besides. Free movement* is the gift that keeps on giving. It supplies the cheap labour, it is used to grow the economy in the absence of productivity gains as more wealth is hoovered, and immigration concerns are used to justify allsorts and keep people focused on that as the source of their ills, not trade deals.

The likes of Trump of course focus on immigration AND trade deals…

* Not that I’m arguing against free movement. Or even for it. Just noting how it might get used.

I take your point about the large UKIP vote at the last General Election but I don’t think this was necessarily a cri de coeur for an EU Referendum. Not only was that already promised by Cameron as a ruse, ironically, to head off a UKIP surge,but there were many other voting determinants at play that stoked the UKIP vote and these tended to have nothing whatsoever to do with Europe. Much more to do with a general anti-immigration feeling, irrespective of where the immigrants were coming from, and an alienation from, and disillusionment with, mainstream politics.

For most of the last Parliament, EU membership was pretty low down the list of voters priorities when asked in opinion polls, and Cameron’s enthusiasm for a Referendum owed itself mainly to fears about the damage UKIP may do to his party electorally and concerns about his right wing rump of MPs and the instability they could cause. He’d reneged on a Referendum promise before, with little electoral fall out, but was panicked into a commitment when he started to stare at the polls circa 2012. He thought he was going to lose in 2015 without the pledge.

I’m not a great fan of referendums (referenda?) generally. We live in a parliamentary democracy where these sorts of decisions should be made at General Elections. The current ludicrous debate, name-checking Hitler and Napoleon and generating a blizzard of scarcely believable economic claims and counter-claims is exactly what you get and deserve when politicians run away from big decisions for party political reasons. Party management trumps statesmanship and government collective responsibility here and the Tories deserve to pay a price for governing us like this.

Quibbling over whataboutery won’t help any, indeed you will wrangle and tie yourself up in knots vain and waste much time trying to invent a reason to rule out oil prices from consideration, because far from being an “insane” thing to consider, oil prices will likely be rather important should Scotland achieve independence. Indeed, even the Yes campaign considered oil prices, albeit they got them wrong, so according to your logic they’re crazy too!!

Re: broken promises, you’re just assuming there’s been a broken promise sans evidence. I refer you back to what others showed on previous thread, where apparently not only was there no evidence provided of a promise to stay in the EU, there were in addition indications prior to the Indy ref. of wanting to hold an EU ref….

For those struggling with the “online Polls V Phone Polls” dichotomy, here’s AW’s blog from 4 weeks ago on some parallel polling by ICM which highlights the differences the two modes produce. Populus have also done the same (twice) with even wider differences between the two modes.

Note too that this is reflected in the General Election Voting Intention, with UKIP showing at 16% online, and 13% by phone. The point is that while we have no precedent against which to judge the Remain/Leave shares in EURef polls, there is plenty of data relating to UKIP’s performance in various GB elections compared to the preceding Online Polls. And all that evidence points in the same direction.

To what extent do the bookies odds reflect where the money is going as opposed to some other insider information? i.e. do the shortening odds just mean some high rolling gamblers* have just put their shirt on remain?

Addressed my points? Quite a few weren’t even my points, like the from others evidence that the EU ref was pointed up before the Indy Ref, which you ignored. As for my point, I haven’t even given all the reasons why trying to claim discussion of oil prices is whataboutery.

For example, what happened to oil prices, their collapse, is now an actual fact. It was whataboutery BEFORE the referendum, when Yes campaign supposed high oil prices forever. But you are fine with them talking nonsense about oil prices, but the minute we know what actually happened to oil prices we have to stop mentioning the oil????

The idea we can’t talk oil prices because the people didn’t vote for Indy ref is also bogus because it didn’t put the matter to bed. There may yet be Independence in the future. You cannot expect Scots to ignore oil prices, because they are still considering independence. It’s still a live issue.

Another reason is that even absent of independence, if Independence never happens, oil prices have an effect on Scots economy, affecting investment etc.

And to cap it all, even if independence never happens, it’s fine to consider oil prices in the context pointing out how the Yes campaign telling their people nonsense on oil prices.

So it’s no surprise you’re giving up on this one, a good idea it must be said!! There have been many attempts to try and stop talk of oil prices, but can’t reasonably be done, like I said.

Given the in/out dilemma. Paul Mason has an interesting piece in the papers that shall not be named:

‘The leftwing case for Brexit is strategic and clear. The EU is not – and cannot become – a democracy. Instead, it provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organised crime. It has an executive so powerful it could crush the leftwing government of Greece; a legislature so weak that it cannot effectively determine laws or control its own civil service. A judiciary that, in the Laval and Viking judgments, subordinated workers’ right to strike to an employer’s right do business freely.’

Then says then he will probably abstain because it’s not the right time.. not entirely helpful but it’s another view.

Also, this idea that it’s “insane” to consider what might have happened? Wow. In actual fact, quite often, it is the reverse, it is ludicrous not to consider what might have happened.

For example, if summat bad happens but you escape the worst through luck, it’s still a good idea to consider how bad it could have been, so you can take steps in case not so lucky next time.

And so if there is to be Independence, Scots are likely to have to consider a fall in oil prices in future, even though this time they escaped because didn’t vote for Independence.

Similarly, lots of people have noticed how much harder to deal with the banking crisis it might have been if we’d been in the Euro. It is not insane to consider what would have happened here either. It’s highly sensible and rational.

Note too, Indy peeps often talk about how it’d be different it might have been if we’d had a sovereign wealth fund. This is entirely reasonable too.

Considering what might have happened, rather than being insanity, is an important survival trait. For eggers, someone who nearly gets run over because distracted, but has a lucky escape, is liable to profit from considering how it might have ended up worse, and hence how they might be more careful in future.

“Then says then he will probably abstain because it’s not the right time.. not entirely helpful but it’s another view.”

—————–

Colin gave me a link to a Daily Politics piece a little while ago in which Mason indicated that while he might favour Brexit, he didn’t particularly care for having the current government negotiating the terms of exit…

“So if we leave by a narrow margin and the economy dives maybe would we should pay for it by freeze Pensions till 2020, scrap Bus Passes and Free TV licences and decrease taxpayer support for residential care and home support!
After all why should my children who want to stay pay the price when my parents generation vote to leave and get off free?

Actually, that’s not in anyway a policy I would support because I don’t believe in collective punishment, but if the Remain Campaign want to continue with project fear I bet getting the idea of those cuts into the debate might scare a lot of pensioners into changing their minds!”

————–

Lol Peter, despite your caveat you wanna be careful about giving people too many ideas, because if they applied the same approach to Independence and the economy headed South on Independence, then according to that logic, peeps might be wanting those who voted for Independence to carry the can…

‘We are entering a phase where it’s not enough to dismantle the post war settlement, now they want to lock in the dismantling. ‘

Yes and it smacks of a panic to implement before the next financial crash and people starting to resist more effectively. 2007/8 seems to have been notice that they needed to turn the heat up under the frogs in the saucepan.

I think you are exactly right in the usefulness of immigration on so many levels and demonstrates the opaqueness of the underlying agenda … it’s distract, divert, disguise, deny and deceive. And it’s not democratic.

I do not have to tell you that the EU is in effect a transition trade deal for TTIP/TPP/CETA and TISA which together will create a trade block comprising 60% of the global economy and very obviously excluding China and the other BRICS. The supra-national nature of EU legislation echoes that of the Bilateral Investment Treaties enshrined in International law which supersede the legislation passed by democratically elected governments.

IMO it is beyond ominous that ‘they want to lock in the dismantling’ as the dismantling benefits the transnational corporations to be effectively the legislators. I believe that there is a term to describe rule by corporations.

@James E
“The odds imply a probability of about 77% for Remain, and about 23% for Leave.” or ‘Remain’ over 50% ahead.
1. I don’t believe the polls can be so far away from a 77% end result, so the bookies’ odds must be based on the money riding on this referendum, not on the likely breakdown of voting.
2. I suggest there is a lot of money going on ‘remain’ from people who can spare a lot of money to win more, who believe that the ‘remain’ campaign is strong enough to win, whether or not its arguments stand up. It seems unlikely that enough money will be bet on ‘leave’ before the voting to alter the bookies’ odds substantially.
3. Set against that if there is an ‘anti-establishment vote’ the referendum gives a lot of people the chance to kick Cameron without electing Labour, or alternatively to kick Corbyn for not kicking Cameron.
4. The referendum will be decided by whether the ‘remain’ arguments will generate enough fear of the unknown to keep us in, or so much distrust of the ‘remain’ campaign to persuade enough people to vote against it on principle, or simply to abstain because they can’t trust either side.

The bookies are not seeking to predict the result, but to make money. Don’t they always win if a rank outsider comes in first and the punters lose all the money put on the favourite?

The odds imply that the probability of Remain WINNING (i.e. getting over 50%) is 77%, and the probability of Leave winning is 23%. For what it’s worth, the odds suggest that they think Remain will be 8-10 points ahead.

I’ve provided the figures sums staked on both sides per Oddschecker, above. 59% of what has been staked is on Remain, and 41% on Leave. The bookies certainly don’t always win when a rank outsider comes in first. They made a significant loss on Leicester City winning the Premier League.

“I do not have to tell you that the EU is in effect a transition trade deal for TTIP/TPP/CETA and TISA which together will create a trade block comprising 60% of the global economy and very obviously excluding China and the other BRICS.”

I don’t see this at all. I mean, it could theoretically happen, but the EU is a pretty unique organisation. It isn’t a trade deal, traditional or otherwise. It’s a highly developed political, trade, economic and social multinational organisation. The others you point to are free trade agreements, or purported free trade agreements. There is a world of difference between the two.

Expecting synergy between all these vastly different geographic FTA’s is somewhat fancifal. Again, it’s possible, but the markets are so vastly different to render such a conclusion extremely unlikely.

Looking at the EU polls since early April it appears that most online polls from each company show some narrow remain leads and some narrow leave leads but ICM online are all leave leads. ICM phone polls reflect the other phone polls with larger remain leads. ICM online seems to be the oddball (which doesn’t make it wrong).

CARPFREW
“evidence that the EU ref was pointed up before the Indy Ref”

Far from ignoring that, I pointed out that it doesn’t even matter. Broken promises consist in the Tories saying one thing about EU membership, then failing to campaign for it.

You’d know all this if you’d read my posts, but you have failed time and again to do that. You’re arguing with a little imagined Alun009 in your head. It’s tragic that you’re playing out your own psychodrama in such a public way.

You are clearly trying anything you can to talk about anything other than broken promises. The only things that matters about whether there’s a new referendum is whether the result has been honoured and whether the people of Scotland want a new referendum.

You’re overthinking it. You think that the UK government, Scottish government and independent analysts poor estimate of future oil prices is important to whether or not there is a referendum. It is utterly irrelevant. You might think it’s an important issue that argues in favour of whether or not one should support independence – and you’ve every right to hold that opinion. But really, it’s not the issue at hand. You keep putting the cart before the horse. This isn’t about the contents and arguments in a putative referendum campaign. It’s about whether a contract has been breached.

Now I understand from your waffling on about the fact that a Brexit was imaginable that you think that this is enough to say that a No voter ought to have been aware that the promises of the Better Together campaign about remaining in the EU were not worth the paper they were written on. I’ve disagreed with this, but I understand your position. At least here you are addressing the point. But all this rubbish about oil prices is nothing to do with whether the promises of the referendum were honoured. The refendum was explicitly about Scotland’s constitutional place in the world. A Brexit changes that. The only debating point is whether that’s a material change to what a No vote meant. If it is, I regard the referendum as null. If it is not, I regard the referendum as the settled democratic will of the people of Scotland.

If, and only if, the referedum is nullified in the scenario above should there possibly be a new referendum.

Your position seems to be that oil prices are a sufficient reason to vote No, therefore there should not be a referendum at all, therefore we shouldn’t discuss the possibility that the people of Scotland have had the terms of their 2014 referendum breached. That is clearly arrant nonsense.
The proper democratic way to look at this is to say: should the referendum result be respected? Yes, unless there is a material breach to what was delivered in light of the result. Does a Brexit constitute a material breach? (I say yes, but others may differ). If yes, do the people of Scotland WANT another referendum? If yes, there should be a referendum.

In reality the issue of the economy might affect the way people see the viability of a refendum, and some could argue that the terms of the 2014 referendum are breached but they anyway have no desire for a new referendum. Valid point of view. But to hold the view a material breach is rendered irrelevant by the fact that certain economic events have happened is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of respecting the result of the referendum. And you see this is the part that unionist fail to get. Respecting the result of the referendum isn’t about feeling you were vindicated in your view. It’s about ensuring that what the people demanded is what the people get. If the people didn’t get what they asked for, the result has not been respected. If the result has not been respected, it’s valid to ask again. And you may end up with the same answer, but that’s way down the line. It’s not about whether independence is something any or each of us agree with. It’s about under what circumstances, if any, the people should be consulted again.

None of this is new, though. I’ve tried to go through all this with you before. But it honestly feels like I’m sitting across a chessboard from someone who thinks they’re playing Ludo.

“Far from ignoring that, I pointed out that it doesn’t even matter. Broken promises consist in the Tories saying one thing about EU membership, then failing to campaign for it.

You’d know all this if you’d read my posts…”

—————–

But that doesn’t work. Failing to campaign for what? The charge is a broken promise. Not only had no one managed to prove a promise, there is also evidence, before the Indy ref, that they were going to offer a referendum on the EU, thus affording the possibilty of leavinf the EU.

You think if you just waffle a bit off the point you can erase those remaining facts? Wow…

“You’re overthinking it. You think that the UK government, Scottish government and independent analysts poor estimate of future oil prices is important to whether or not there is a referendum. It is utterly irrelevant.”

No, I don’t think that. That’s misrepresenting. I’m just disagreeing with the idea that we can’t talk about oil prices. You’re imagining disagreement where there is none.

“Now I understand from your waffling on about the fact that a Brexit was imaginable that you think that this is enough to say that a No voter ought to have been aware that the promises of the Better Together campaign about remaining in the EU were not worth the paper they were written on. I’ve disagreed with this, but I understand your position.”

But no one has provided proof of promises to stay in the EU. There’s been proof of the opposite, of an intent to provide the opportunity to leave the EU…

“If, and only if, the referedum is nullified in the scenario above should there possibly be a new referendum.”

Even if we accept your argument, only 3% seem bothered about the EU thing. Not a fabulous mandate…

“Your position seems to be that oil prices are a sufficient reason to vote No, therefore there should not be a referendum at all, therefore we shouldn’t discuss the possibility that the people of Scotland have had the terms of their 2014 referendum breached. That is clearly arrant nonsense.”

Not true. Big misreprsentation. I have not argued that and have clearly stated in the past I don’t think oil prices are automatically sufficient reason to vote no. I am just saying that it should be ok to discuss oil prices, they shouldnt be ruled out as “whataboutery”.

“In reality the issue of the economy might affect the way people see the viability of a refendum, and some could argue that the terms of the 2014 referendum are breached but they anyway have no desire for a new referendum. Valid point of view. But to hold the view a material breach is rendered irrelevant by the fact that certain economic events have happened is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of respecting the result of the referendum.”

But I’m not arguing a material breach is rendered irrelevant by economic events. Another misrepresentation. I’m just saying that the breach is based on the unproven idea of a broken promise, with only 3% fussed about the EU thing anyway, and you are not bothered about your own side’s broken promises.

Incidentally, you seem very keen on the material breach thing… why aren’t you bothered about the nonsense oil price speculations in the Yes campaign prospectus?

“None of this is new, though. I’ve tried to go through all this with you before.”

Quite a bit is new, actually: all these misrepresentations and ad hominems on the back of them.